Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

I'm very skeptical of bourn beacuse of his age but if say the mets sign him to three years 45 million and he exceds expectations then i will admit that i would be wrong about the signing. I just don't know.

I am very skeptical as well. A very limited track record of being a great player and will command a very large contract.
Extremely risky business signing him.

As long as we are arguing about Bourn and not fake dinners and helicopter rides we can get this forum back on track.

It's almost February and the Mets have signed a single Major League player - an often injured pitcher who's thrown 200 innings just once in a seven year career. Because of this he came pretty cheap.

Meanwhile they lost the reigning Cy Young Award winner and their best outfielder.

This is the off-season's big story. Ownership and management is malignant and dishonest.

Focusing on this IS keeping the forum on track.

Having a big discussion thread about high priced free agents the Mets are unlikely to sign is like having a thread about unicorns. Believe the nonsense if you want, but don't feel everyone else is obligated to share the fantasy.

It's almost February and the Mets have signed a single Major League player - an often injured pitcher who's thrown 200 innings just once in a seven year career. Because of this he came pretty cheap.

Meanwhile they lost the reigning Cy Young Award winner and their best outfielder.

This is the off-season's big story. Ownership and management is malignant and dishonest.

Focusing on this IS keeping the forum on track.

Having a big discussion thread about high priced free agents the Mets are unlikely to sign is like having a thread about unicorns. Believe the nonsense if you want, but don't feel everyone else is obligated to share the fantasy.

Marcum can earn as much as $8 million. His base is $4million. He isn't what I would call cheap.

The Mets now have signed two major league pitchers.

The Mets didn't lose Dickey. They traded him.

Scott Hairston had a nice season, but he's not worth worrying about losing.

If you characterize ownership as being dishonest, I think you are more dishonest for consistently misrepresenting reality.

“The Wilpons and Mr. Saul Katz — the people who say they don’t care about the team are sorely misguided,” Ojeda told the newspaper. “These are the biggest Mets fans you will meet."

Marcum can earn as much as $8 million. His base is $4million. He isn't what I would call cheap.

The Mets now have signed two major league pitchers.

The Mets didn't lose Dickey. They traded him.

Scott Hairston had a nice season, but he's not worth worrying about losing.

If you characterize ownership as being dishonest, I think you are more dishonest for consistently misrepresenting reality.

Which two have they signed? As far as I know, the only player that hasn't been signed to a Minor League contract this off-season is Marcum. Hawkins signed a Minor League deal. So unsurprisingly you're wrong.

You think I'm more dishonest than ownership? That doesn't say much. You think the Wilpons are honest men with great integrity, so in your opinion that could make me generally honest, too. Maybe not as noble as the Wilpons - in your opinion - but you hold them on a pedestal, so I doubt any lowly Met fan could ever measure up to their standard... In your opinion.

You blast Met fans regularly, while defending ownership incessantly. It'd be inconsistent of you to do otherwise.

Which two have they signed? As far as I know, the only player that hasn't been signed to a Minor League contract this off-season is Marcum. Hawkins signed a Minor League deal. So unsurprisingly you're wrong.

You think I'm more dishonest than ownership? That doesn't say much. You think the Wilpons are honest men with great integrity, so in your opinion that could make me generally honest, too. Maybe not as noble as the Wilpons - in your opinion - but you hold them on a pedestal, so I doubt any lowly Met fan could ever measure up to their standard... In your opinion.

You blast Met fans regularly, while defending ownership incessantly. It'd be inconsistent of you to do otherwise.

As I just mentioned in another thread, Hawkins is most definitely a major league player. Not giving him a guaranteed MLB contract and waiting to see how it goes in ST is a PLUS, not something that somehow makes it a bad move and him a lesser player.

And yes you are incredibly dishonest and spin good or neutral things into "ZOMG we lost the cy young winner" without mentioning the great return we got for him, or saying an 18 year vet isn't an MLB player.

Which two have they signed? As far as I know, the only player that hasn't been signed to a Minor League contract this off-season is Marcum. Hawkins signed a Minor League deal. So unsurprisingly you're wrong.

I stated that they signed two Major League pitchers. Both Marcum and Hawkins are established MLB pitchers. They have proven to be effective at that level.

“The Wilpons and Mr. Saul Katz — the people who say they don’t care about the team are sorely misguided,” Ojeda told the newspaper. “These are the biggest Mets fans you will meet."

I got the sense yesterday that there’s some optimism that the Mets are gonna be able to pull this off – sign Michael Bourn and not give up the [first round] draft choice. Now, the argument by the Mets, by the players association, and of course by Scott Boras is that the first 10 picks are protected. The Mets have the 11th pick. But the 8th pick was awarded to the Pirates because they didn’t sign their number 1 pick last year. So, they’re [the Mets] arguing that actually, in reality, the 10th pick is actually the Mets pick, it’s protected, they don’t have to give up the number 1 [11th overall]. And I sensed yesterday that there’s real optimism that this may get done.

Rosenthal

There is a possibility, but this idea that the Mets are going to be allowed to forfeit a second round pick instead of a first rounder, because they draft 11th, and because they only draft 11th due to the Pirates getting back into the first round for not signing their first round pick last year – I don’t see that happening, and here’s why: The basic agreement clearly states that the top 10 picks are the ones protected. Those are the teams that can’t lose their first round picks. It does not account for any teams after that, and I have a really hard time believing that Major League baseball is going to allow the basic agreement to be changed for one team, the New York Mets, because the New York Mets are in an unfortunate position here. You do that, the other teams scream ‘hey, why are the Mets getting this break?’ And you do that also, there’s a precedent now. Next year’s number 11 team could be in the same position if another team sneaks into the first round, and it’s just a bad path to go down. I don’t see that happening…

"You don't know how to drink. Your whole generation, you drink for the wrong reasons. My generation, we drink because it's good, because it feels better than unbuttoning your collar, because we deserve it. We drink because it's what men do."

"You don't know how to drink. Your whole generation, you drink for the wrong reasons. My generation, we drink because it's good, because it feels better than unbuttoning your collar, because we deserve it. We drink because it's what men do."